Results 1 to 7 of 7
- 05-01-2004, 12:33 PM #1Robert M.Guest
They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on USENET.
› See More: Schlumberger is checking USENET
- 05-01-2004, 12:37 PM #2Lawrence GlasserGuest
Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET
"Robert M." wrote:
>
> They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on USENET.
How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
on USENET.
Larry
- 05-01-2004, 12:39 PM #3Robert M.Guest
Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET
In article <[email protected]>,
Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robert M." wrote:
> >
> > They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on USENET.
>
> How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
> on USENET.
Someone who calls dozens of folks on USENET a moron is behaving badly.
You disagree?
- 05-01-2004, 12:45 PM #4Lawrence GlasserGuest
Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET
"Robert M." wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robert M." wrote:
> > >
> > > They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on USENET.
> >
> > How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
> > on USENET.
>
> Someone who calls dozens of folks on USENET a moron is behaving badly.
>
> You disagree?
If someone calls *dozens* of folks "a moron," then yes, I agree.
I don't see where that happened.
As someone whose apparent frequent intention, on USENET, is solely
to stir up trouble, I think then term is "The pot( i.e., you) calling
the kettle black."
Larry
- 05-01-2004, 02:02 PM #5Robert M.Guest
Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET
In article <[email protected]>,
Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robert M." wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Robert M." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > They take a dim view of their employees bad behavior in public on
> > > > USENET.
> > >
> > > How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad
> > > behavior"
> > > on USENET.
> >
> > Someone who calls dozens of folks on USENET a moron is behaving badly.
> >
> > You disagree?
>
> If someone calls *dozens* of folks "a moron," then yes, I agree.
>
> I don't see where that happened.
Do a Google search on your friend and "moron".
THAT HAPPENED.
- 05-01-2004, 07:00 PM #6John S.Guest
Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET
>How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
>on USENET.
And your reply to him keeps him going. There should be no comments or replies
to anything that he or and of his 65 or so aliases post. With NO audience he
might just go away!
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
- 05-02-2004, 11:57 AM #7John RichardsGuest
Re: Schlumberger is checking USENET
"John S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >How ironic that *you* should comment on someone's allegedly "bad behavior"
>>on USENET.
>
> And your reply to him keeps him going. There should be no comments or replies
> to anything that he or and of his 65 or so aliases post. With NO audience he
> might just go away!
Indeed. I killfiled him about a month ago, and won't be replying to any of his posts.
--
John Richards
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.nokia
- alt.cellular.nextel
Lifeline cell phone service
in Chit Chat